Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Macro Lenses - 30mm, 60mm, 90mm, 180mm - which is best? what has been your experience?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
Apr 14, 2019 14:51:49   #
Chris T
 
User ID wrote:
Life with modern zooms includes internal focusing,
which shortens the FL as you focus closer.

My Nikon zoom at 300mm marked FL "shrinks" to
about 135mm actual FL at the near focus. IOW, it
does what users of 135mm macros only wish their
lenses would do: It shoots closeups at an actual
135mm working FL.

Near limit is 9" from the front element and field of
view is 3x5". IOW, "close-up" but no "macro" head
shots of bumble bees.

.
Life with modern zooms includes internal focusing,... (show quote)


Okay, USER … so, now, you've created the possibility a fake 135mm Macro exists …

But, what about a REAL 135mm Macro? … I could NOT find one, to save my life …

Closest is the Sigma f2.8 150 - which, as you can see from other posts here - is quite a heavy lens!!!!

Canon has a 135mm f2 … but it's NOT a Macro Lens … still, it's worthy of consideration …

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:53:19   #
frodoboy
 
You can do quite nice "macro" shots with a tele. I used to use my Canon 100-400 MKII at 3 feet or farther. The DOF is really nice because of the focal length. While not a "true" macro, it looks almost as good in my opinion and is easier to get more of the subject in focus with the background still blurred. I use my Nikon 500mm pf now if I don't have the Sigma 105 handy but close focus distance is right at 10 feet so it isn't as easy to use as the 100-400 was.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:56:17   #
lisasells55
 
Chris T wrote:
So, would you say the Sigma 150 is your fave, then, Lisa - or would it be the Nikkor 200 Macro?


Chris, I really love the Nikkor 200mm macro! The detail you can get from this lens, even at a bit of a distance is pretty incredible! It is probably my favorite, but I use the 150 and 60 a lot for quick close-ups. I really enjoy insect photography. I use the Nikon SB-R200 wireless lighting system for macro.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 14:57:07   #
lisasells55
 
I meant to say 105 and 60!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:03:33   #
Chris T
 
imagemeister wrote:
When I had the Canon 70-200 f4 I really liked it for close up work - either with a tube , a 500D, a 1.4X or a combination of two of these.

On Sony, I have also used the Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5 with a 12mm tube with great success and Clear Image Zoom if need be.

Now, with the A99, I will be using a 100mm Tokina and CIZ along with the 70-210/tube and CIZ.

..


Larry … you just bought an a99 - did you? … Congratulations, my friend … I hear that's a fine camera!!!!

Not quite the one the newer version turned out to be … but, hey … that's $3200 … you got that for what - a grand, or a little less? … How do you like it, so far?

Tokina 100 Macro for a-mount, huh, Larry? … I'll bet you've had THAT for a while … it only comes in Nikon F and EOS mounts, currently ...

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:10:29   #
User ID (a regular here)
 
imagemeister wrote:

When I had the Canon 70-200 f4 I really liked it for
close up work - either with a tube , a 500D, a 1.4X or
a combination of two of these.

On Sony, I have also used the Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5
with a 12mm tube with great success and Clear Image
Zoom if need be.

Now, with the A99, I will be using a 100mm Tokina and
CIZ along with the 70-210/tube and CIZ.

..


CIZ rawks !

.... especially in the 1.4 to 1.5X range,
and doesn't cost you any lens speed as
would happen with a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't lose any MP, but by definition
it must reduce resolution ... but it does
that with no loss of sharpness [rezo vs
sharpness ... see google]. OTOH, a TC
will cost you rezo AND sharpness, along
with the aforementioned loss of light ...
which you can read as "increased noise".

CIZ rawks ! Did I mention that ?

-----------------------------------------

CIZ is Sony jargon for digital zoom that
interpolates and replaces any lost pixels.
And it RAWKS !

.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:14:13   #
Chris T
 
lisasells55 wrote:
Chris, I really love the Nikkor 200mm macro! The detail you can get from this lens, even at a bit of a distance is pretty incredible! It is probably my favorite, but I use the 150 and 60 a lot for quick close-ups. I really enjoy insect photography. I use the Nikon SB-R200 wireless lighting system for macro.


That's good to know, Lisa … glad you like that one. … Phew!!! … that's what? an $1800 lens, I'll bet …

f4 though, is a little bit on the slow side … I shied away from the 85 Micro-Nikkor because of the f3.5 …

The Sigma 150 and 180 are both at f2.8 … heavy, though … even my 105 Siggie is on the heavy side!!!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:15:08   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
User ID wrote:
CIZ rawks !

.... especially in the 1.4 to 1.5X range,
and doesn't cost you any lens speed as
would happen with a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't lose any MP, but by definition
it must reduce resolution ... but it does
that with no loss of sharpness [rezo vs
sharpness ... see google]. OTOH, a TC
will cost you rezo AND sharpness, along
with the aforementioned loss of light ...
which you can read as "increased noise".

CIZ rawks ! Did I mention that ?

-----------------------------------------

CIZ is Sony jargon for digital zoom that
interpolates and replaces any lost pixels.
And it RAWKS !

.
CIZ rawks ! br br .... especially in the 1.4 ... (show quote)


I'm glad we can agree on this !

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:20:12   #
Chris T
 
User ID wrote:
CIZ rawks !

.... especially in the 1.4 to 1.5X range,
and doesn't cost you any lens speed as
would happen with a 1.4X TC.

It doesn't lose any MP, but by definition
it must reduce resolution ... but it does
that with no loss of sharpness [rezo vs
sharpness ... see google]. OTOH, a TC
will cost you rezo AND sharpness, along
with the aforementioned loss of light ...
which you can read as "increased noise".

CIZ rawks ! Did I mention that ?

-----------------------------------------

CIZ is Sony jargon for digital zoom that
interpolates and replaces any lost pixels.
And it RAWKS !

.
CIZ rawks ! br br .... especially in the 1.4 ... (show quote)


USER … CIZ stands for CLEAR IMAGE ZOOM … which is out to 2x on SLTs … mainly, the a58 and a77 II.
Digital Zoom - which is constantly variable from 1x to 4x (2x on the a77) is a little different ….

Whilst Digital Zoom is as you say … Clear Image Zoom - is a cut above, and translates to using extenders.
In other words - whilst using one of those camera designs which employ CIZ - you have, basically - a built-in extender, and there's no need to add one. There's no difference in the images attained, when using CIZ and using - up to - a 2x extender. Clearly - you don't have access to any Sony alpha cameras ….

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:23:15   #
imagemeister (a regular here)
 
Chris T wrote:
Larry … you just bought an a99 - did you? … Congratulations, my friend … I hear that's a fine camera!!!!

Not quite the one the newer version turned out to be … but, hey … that's $3200 … you got that for what - a grand, or a little less? … How do you like it, so far?

Tokina 100 Macro for a-mount, huh, Larry? … I'll bet you've had THAT for a while … it only comes in Nikon F and EOS mounts, currently ...


A99 off ebay - $800.....same price I paid for my A77II new 3 1/2 years ago. Yes, the Tokina is the older IF version that goes to 1:2. The A99 ROCKS ! The Busch A99 book/manual today is scalping for $150 used on ebay as they are out of print !
.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:23:35   #
Annie Loyd
 
Very helpful...thank you...off to shop!

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:24:32   #
Chris T
 
frodoboy wrote:
You can do quite nice "macro" shots with a tele. I used to use my Canon 100-400 MKII at 3 feet or farther. The DOF is really nice because of the focal length. While not a "true" macro, it looks almost as good in my opinion and is easier to get more of the subject in focus with the background still blurred. I use my Nikon 500mm pf now if I don't have the Sigma 105 handy but close focus distance is right at 10 feet so it isn't as easy to use as the 100-400 was.


So, what happened, Frodo? … Did you lose that 100-400, sell it, or did it get pinched?

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:28:43   #
DWU2
 
Chris T wrote:
Is it really necessary for us to buy one in each range? Or, are just one or two suitable for most things? If you use them - please advise as to which length is better suited for YOUR purposes, and why you chose it.


I get good results with my 90mm f/2.8 Sigma. It gives me enough separation that I usually don't bother critters. If I want a little more separation, I occasionally use it with a 2X teleextender.

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:32:09   #
Chris T
 
imagemeister wrote:
A99 off ebay - $800.....same price I paid for my A77II new 3 1/2 years ago. Yes, the Tokina is the older IF version that goes to 1:2. The A99 ROCKS ! The Busch A99 book/manual today is scalping for $150 used on ebay as they are out of print !
.


That's GREAT, Larry ... I was looking at one for around $1200 at Christmastime ...

Yup ... the a77 II still is selling for $1200-1300 ... even now ... what a rip-off, huh?

Still - keeps the value up ... watch it drop like a lead balloon, once the a77 III is announced!!!!

There are OTHER manuals on the a99, Larry ... browse a bit over at Amazon ....

| Reply
Apr 14, 2019 15:40:26   #
lisasells55
 
Yes, it is an expensive lens, although I've had it for many years. I am interested in checking out those Sigmas. I've heard their macro lenses are really good!

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.